Sodom and Gomorrah

[muichimotsu]

When I said author I was referring to the gospel authors. When I mention Paul I was referring to 1 Timothy 2.

You can call the bible sexist and unfair all you want. But it is the word of God. God doesn't have to write as per how you want it. God just tells us the truth in any way he sees fit.

If you think God is sexist and unfair, so be it. But this doesn't mean Jesus' death and resurrection didn't happen.

The reason why Christians obey the bible is because Jesus died, was buried, was raised and was finally seen by more than 500 eye witnesses. With this in mind we obey the bible no matter how sexist, unfair or even senseless it seems at times. We trust and obey God. We seek not our own understanding.

So I ask you again. In a world where woman are viewed as useless slaves and cannot testify at all in court, why would the gospel writers record that it was women who found the empty tomb? The women's testimony worth nothing. Their eyewitness accounts were meaningless in that culture.

And now you're putting words in my mouth: I never said that if the bible was sexist that Jesus's resurrection was untrue, that's entirely separate in regards to demonstration of it being true or not. The bible being sexist isn't what brings its claims of supernatural things into question of credibility, it's the fact that they're supernatural to begin with.

And you emphasize the very problem I saw with it as a teenager: this is the worst kind of attitude to teach a child: believe and don't question anything because you can't be trusted to think for yourself. It's even worse when that's especially placed on women, because they're seen as secondary and the weaker sex, that they have to go to men, because they're just "better" at such things, which is factually untrue.

They'd write it that way to be controversial and edgy, as any person who wants to create something that draws peoples' attention. Funny how you claim there are all these eyewitnesses and yet there doesn't seem to be any extrabiblical evidence that the Jesus you speak of was even around, was crucified or was seen after his alleged death. They're trying to be revolutionary, they throw out radical ideas for people who might think otherwise, because they want to spread that rhetoric, to draw in followers to their cult of personality.

 

[muichimotsu]

Yes she will be making some ultimate decisions. For example she cooks and he doesn't. So she will be deciding on what to eat at every single meal, unless he one day learns how to cook.

You think couples are so imbalanced in terms of those skills these days? Men are expected to know how to cook somewhat because it's a basic skill, not because they want to become independent of women. This isn't a unilaterial decision anymore than that of getting married to begin with: it's a shared choice that they deliberate on and come to a conclusion

 

[muichimotsu]

..what are you guys arguing, whats this got to to with the topic of sodom and gomorrah. Give it a rest.

If an unbeliever doesnt want to take Gods word for anything, then let them be. Or pray for them.

Gods orginal plan for men and women...god created man first and woman from man. The woman is for the man, not the other way round.

In revelation it does say that the effeminite wont inherit the kingdom of God, or in other translations, homosexuals. This is because men arent meant to be women. And women arent meant to be as men. God didnt design them that way.

If your culture is that females take charge and the men just are looked after like babies, thats just not how it should be. Jesus came to redeem us from going astray...and put right who we are meant to be...by making us whole again.

And more strawmen of the position you disagree with

This isn't about someone being for another, it's about people being in a relationship that is mutually understanding of their feelings. My mother wasn't made for my father or vice versa, they met and fell in love. There's not some fatalistic determinism going on here or some nonsense of women being only around for men to channel their sexual frustrations into them because they have no self control

Revelation also talked about a chimeric beast and the like: not sure how much you can take what is said in it at face value, not to mention the apocalyptic nature of it renders a lot of the imagery more figurative and metaphorical in nature rather than something that will actually happen

Men aren't being women in having the capacity to cook, sew or nurture children and women aren't being men in the inverse: when you start gendering things that are gender neutral, you miss the point entirely of gender equality and egalitarianism.

Where did I ever say that we should have female superiority? The goal is equality and equity, not superiority of either side in terms of this perceived imbalance

 

[muichimotsu]

dp

 

[Cute Tink]

 

[CCHIPSS]

i think it means, in regards to women saved by childbirth is that, if they not christians, having children may save them because it causes them to suffer and be less selfish...and also to show love to their children. Or maybe their children will be a joy to them and become christians.

I know several mothers that show the most selfish behaviour but they are kept alive by the fact that their children need them and are dependent on them. Its God giving them the opportunity to learn about what love is.

If you a mother you just CANNOT think about yourself all the time. Your baby will die if you don't look after it. And it will be your fault.

That's an interesting take. I was thinking that verse says woman's priority is on being a mentor to young children. There are plenty of children and young women for them to teach and mentor. As such women really shouldn't prioritize in teaching men.

Once again women had taught men in the bible. So it isn't banned.

 

[CCHIPSS]

I care about what you think the bible says because it affects how you try to influence others and how you live your life in a way that isn't separate from others, but can and does affect them. You say this spiritual area can't be seen, so how can you really conclude it must exist except through purely subjective experience or special pleading?

You seem to think that all Christians share your views on gender roles and norms and yet that's clearly not the case. Again, the problem here is not your beliefs, but how they affect your behavior in a world that isn't populated by people who will agree with you.

Like I already said, trying to appear progressive in one way doesn't justify the regressive treatment women still get under the pretense of Christian egalitarianism through the divine creation model. Women are still considered secondary and submissive to men, not equals in the basic sense, which would entail they are not expected to be the weaker sex, merely differentiated in other ways.

You keep saying they started the gender equality movement, yet historically, I doubt this was entirely the case, especially if we're talking about the world at large. The idea of women being autonomous was not started with Christianity in the slightest, because they were still regarded as having some obligation to be submissive to men, as if men were still innately superior in some way because they were created first, as if primacy of existence means you're better than that which comes later, which it doesn't.

Your notions of feminism seem unrealistically skewed to be dismissive of them from the start. Also, a big strawman of women not needing protection from men, because that's quite the opposite in terms of how culture regards women as sex objects or otherwise something to be passive and not have active agency in the slightest, because that's not staying in her place as a woman, subject to men. The ideal is equality and equity, not superiority of either sex, because that's creating an unrealistic dynamic and relationship.

Feminism is saying that men are in a privileged state in many respects and should recognize that, not treating women callously or with disregard to their autonomy (abortion rights, etc). Women aren't saying they don't need men, they're saying that men need to realize that they need women as well, that people should have a communal structure where we are judged by aptitude, not purely superficial characteristics.

Also, this persistent idea that women who are feminists hate men or that feminism is rooting in misandry is absurd. This is a recent development at best, maybe 30 years or so. And that isn't indicative of feminism as a whole, merely the 3rd or 4th wave in its history, the 1st and 2nd being about voting rights and other basic considerations of equality, such as divorce, etc.

A woman being independent does not entail that they think men cannot and should not protect them, but there's a sense of humility that is being encouraged, as in maybe men shouldn't automatically assume they need to protect a woman or treat them like a fragile person, when that's usually quite the reverse in terms of general observations (who's the sex that carries the young and births them? Exactly)

What you describe is misandric feminism, not feminism in the sense of gender egalitarianism, which is a reasonable and equitable ideal for human society. Men and woman are not absolutely equal, but they should not be stratified as if men are superior in every way, shape and form to women or vice versa with women. We all have different capacities and our sex is not usually relevant or germane to that and assessment thereof.

1) You say this spiritual area can't be seen, so how can you really conclude it must exist except through purely subjective experience or special pleading?

Women mystics heavily influenced the Pentecostal church. If you want to see demonic spirits in action, go ahead and watch some youtube videos of them shaking around and blah blah blah in some unknown tone. Trust me, they are very deceived.

2) You seem to think that all Christians share your views on gender roles and norms and yet that's clearly not the case. Again, the problem here is not your beliefs, but how they affect your behavior in a world that isn't populated by people who will agree with you.

I never said that. Do you see how many denominations are out there? No 2 Christians believe in the exact same things. Not even 2. But our unity is from believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus and calling him our savior.

3) The idea of women being autonomous was not started with Christianity in the slightest, because they were still regarded as having some obligation to be submissive to men.

You are free to do your own research.

Fact is that women were viewed as useless slaves before Christianity. After Christianity women got much more rights than before. Basic human values were Christian ideas. For example many Hindu's joined Christianity to escape the caste system.

4) Women aren't saying they don't need men, they're saying that men need to realize that they need women as well, that people should have a communal structure where we are judged by aptitude, not purely superficial characteristics.

Where did I say men doesn't need women at all? This is not only not my opinion, but this goes directly against what the Bible said about women.

5) A woman being independent does not entail that they think men cannot and should not protect them, but there's a sense of humility that is being encouraged, as in maybe men shouldn't automatically assume they need to protect a woman or treat them like a fragile person, when that's usually quite the reverse in terms of general observations (who's the sex that carries the young and births them? Exactly)

That's the problem. They want all their freedom yet expect the same protection. It doesn't work like that. I will try to explain.

The biggest issue is they are seeing things only from the point of view of those strong & independent women. Have you considered the other side? The weak & dependent women?

You forgot the other side where all men are wimps who cannot do anything. They just want to trick the women into bed, but these men do not want any responsibilities. In the ancient days perhaps woman had to submit to their husband. But at least all men were expected to take care of their wives.

Not so today.

Ok so women do not want the men's protection? Alright then, the men won't. These adult males, boys in men's bodies, will just stay as boys then. The sociality now encourage this type of behaviour. They get their GFs pregnant and then these boys ran away. That GF do not want an abortion so she kept the baby. Now her education is ruined and she works minimum wage jobs for the rest of her life. In her stress she started smoking, or even taking drugs. The above factors also lowered her chance of finding a decent man, so she settle for a man with problems. Alcoholic, abusive, you name it. Or the men just trick her into bed once again, and simply dump her in a few months.

This is the direct result of feminism. They took men's protection for granted. They fight against that protection for freedom. Now there is no protection and women are truly on their own. The strong women will be ok. But the weak woman will suffer time and time again. Look at all those heart-breaking stories and you know the bible was right.

Now there are both strong men and weak men. Just as there are strong women and weak women. However a weak men will still be ok. He most likely won't be a single father. It is very rare. A weak man mostly likely will just live in his mother's basement, work minimal wage jobs and never find a wife. But that isn't even that bad if you think about it.

No one in our sociality gets nearly as abused as a weak woman. And the feminists wants to take away a social system that had protected them for hundreds of years?

Of course the feminist couldn't careless about these weak women. They aren't their target audience anyways. That's why they want sex, abortion and social welfare programs for single mothers. It all come together.

Wait a minute! These things doesn't sound all that bad right? That depends on your point of view.

Does an unborn child has the right to live?
Does a child has the right to a father?

Feminist never considered the children. They want to kill the children. Alternatively, they want the government to pay for their mess. How much money does it take to replace the father in a child's life?

 

[MotherFirefly]

1) You say this spiritual area can't be seen, so how can you really conclude it must exist except through purely subjective experience or special pleading?

Women mystics heavily influenced the Pentecostal church. If you want to see demonic spirits in action, go ahead and watch some youtube videos of them shaking around and blah blah blah in some unknown tone. Trust me, they are very deceived.

2) You seem to think that all Christians share your views on gender roles and norms and yet that's clearly not the case. Again, the problem here is not your beliefs, but how they affect your behavior in a world that isn't populated by people who will agree with you.

I never said that. Do you see how many denominations are out there? No 2 Christians believe in the exact same things. Not even 2. But our unity is from believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus and calling him our savior.

3) The idea of women being autonomous was not started with Christianity in the slightest, because they were still regarded as having some obligation to be submissive to men.

You are free to do your own research.

Fact is that women were viewed as useless slaves before Christianity. After Christianity women got much more rights than before. Basic human values were Christian ideas. For example many Hindu's joined Christianity to escape the caste system.

4) Women aren't saying they don't need men, they're saying that men need to realize that they need women as well, that people should have a communal structure where we are judged by aptitude, not purely superficial characteristics.

Where did I say men doesn't need women at all? This not not only not my opinion, but this goes directly against what the Bible said about women.

5) A woman being independent does not entail that they think men cannot and should not protect them, but there's a sense of humility that is being encouraged, as in maybe men shouldn't automatically assume they need to protect a woman or treat them like a fragile person, when that's usually quite the reverse in terms of general observations (who's the sex that carries the young and births them? Exactly)

That's the problem. They want all their freedom yet expect the same protection. It doesn't work like that. I will try to explain.

The biggest issue is they are seeing things only from the point of view of those strong & independent women. Have you considered the other side? The weak & dependent women?

You forgot the other side where all men are wimps who cannot do anything. They just want to trick the women into bed, but these men do not want any responsibilities. In the ancient days perhaps woman had to submit to their husband. But at least all men were expected to take care of their wives.

Not so today.

Ok so women do not want the men's protection? Alright then, the men won't. These adult males, boys in men's bodies, will just stay as boys then. The sociality now encourage this type of behaviour. They get their GFs pregnant and then these boys ran away. That GF do not want an abortion so she kept the baby. Now her education is ruined and she works minimum wage jobs for the rest of her life. In her stress she started smoking, or even taking drugs. The above factors also lowered her chance of finding a decent man, so she settle for a man with problems. Alcoholic, abusive, you name it. Or the men just trick her into bed once again, and simply dump her in a few months.

This is the direct result of feminism. They took men's protection for granted. They fight against that protection for freedom. Now there is no protection and women are truly on their own. The strong women will be ok. But the weak woman will suffer time and time again. Look at all those heart-breaking stories and you know the bible was right.

Now there are both strong men and weak men. Just as there are strong women and weak women. However a weak men will still be ok. He most likely won't be a single father. It is very rare. A weak man mostly likely will just live in his mother's basement, work minimal wage jobs and never find a wife. But that isn't even that bad if you think about it.

No one in our sociality gets nearly as abused as a weak woman. And the feminists wants to take away a social system that had protected them for hundreds of years?

Of course the feminist couldn't careless about these weak women. They aren't their target audience anyways. That's why they want sex, abortion and social welfare programs for single mothers. It all come together.

Wait a minute! These things doesn't sound all that bad right? That depends on your point of view.

Does an unborn child has the right to live?
Does a child has the right to a father?

Feminist never considered the children. They want to kill the children. Alternatively, they want the government to pay for their mess. How much money does it take to replace the father in a child's life?

I would say, most of this, is very excellent. You need to explain this to more people.

 

[Goodbook]

I also think women are saved by childbearing in the sense that...you can't see a baby for 9 months but you are trusting all the time its growing inside of you, and that is a kind of faith in itself. A baby is a miracle of life, that you really had no part in creation of aside from being a vessel to house the baby.

Anyway...men do not have this privelige. Imagine if men had babies. They would be different I'm sure...they would certainly be more careful about things and mindful of others. And you think..why don't men have babies, after all they are built stronger. But no, it its the weaker vessel, the women who have babies.

 

[Goodbook]

I saw this movie called the suffragetes.
It was a recent movie. it was based on the suffragette movement in England. it was focussing on this one women who worked as a laundry and then she got sucked into the suffragettes movement. she was married right, and had a son, but because she joined the suffragettes they wanted her to give up her husband and son to go fight for the cause of the vote, and also put bombs in letterboxes. Then I think she died by deliberately stepping in front of a horse at the racecourse to highlight the suffragettes movement.

But you know, if her husband properly provided for her, she may not have needed to work in the laundry...or if her husband had of agreed, HE could have lobbied for women to get the vote as well, or maybe fair treatment of workers. But no, it was the women, especially the bullying priveliged women who used the poor weaker women as scapegoats for their cause. The laundry woman didn't even really want the vote, she wouldn't have known what to do with it.

And years later, we women can vote, but...as far as I can tell, it hasn't really done us a lot of good anyway. Well..in so far as politicians are generally liars and cheaters anyway, promising much and delivering nothing. If a bunch of idiots all want to be politicians, because sadly it attracts therse very people, we don't have much choice anyway!!

 

[Goodbook]

Oh yes and the priveliged woman who bullied the poorer woman into fighting for her cause..didn't have children and her husband was effeminate.

so the younger poorer woman lost her husband AND her son..as she spent all her time fighting for the cause. And then she died. And the bullying older woman didn't shed a tear, it was a victory for her cause. She was like a pharmacist or something, already earning good money so she wanted all the power.

 

[Goodbook]

They decided to give women the vote so that the feminists would stop putting others in dangerous positions. I mean that was in England. I'm not sure how it happened here, but those particular feminists were evil.

 

[muichimotsu]

3) The idea of women being autonomous was not started with Christianity in the slightest, because they were still regarded as having some obligation to be submissive to men.

You are free to do your own research.

Fact is that women were viewed as useless slaves before Christianity. After Christianity women got much more rights than before. Basic human values were Christian ideas. For example many Hindu's joined Christianity to escape the caste system.

4) Women aren't saying they don't need men, they're saying that men need to realize that they need women as well, that people should have a communal structure where we are judged by aptitude, not purely superficial characteristics.

Where did I say men doesn't need women at all? This not not only not my opinion, but this goes directly against what the Bible said about women.

5) A woman being independent does not entail that they think men cannot and should not protect them, but there's a sense of humility that is being encouraged, as in maybe men shouldn't automatically assume they need to protect a woman or treat them like a fragile person, when that's usually quite the reverse in terms of general observations (who's the sex that carries the young and births them? Exactly)

That's the problem. They want all their freedom yet expect the same protection. It doesn't work like that. I will try to explain.

The biggest issue is they are seeing things only from the point of view of those strong & independent women. Have you considered the other side? The weak & dependent women?

You forgot the other side where all men are wimps who cannot do anything. They just want to trick the women into bed, but these men do not want any responsibilities. In the ancient days perhaps woman had to submit to their husband. But at least all men were expected to take care of their wives.

Not so today.

Ok so women do not want the men's protection? Alright then, the men won't. These adult males, boys in men's bodies, will just stay as boys then. The sociality now encourage this type of behaviour. They get their GFs pregnant and then these boys ran away. That GF do not want an abortion so she kept the baby. Now her education is ruined and she works minimum wage jobs for the rest of her life. In her stress she started smoking, or even taking drugs. The above factors also lowered her chance of finding a decent man, so she settle for a man with problems. Alcoholic, abusive, you name it. Or the men just trick her into bed once again, and simply dump her in a few months.

This is the direct result of feminism. They took men's protection for granted. They fight against that protection for freedom. Now there is no protection and women are truly on their own. The strong women will be ok. But the weak woman will suffer time and time again. Look at all those heart-breaking stories and you know the bible was right.

Now there are both strong men and weak men. Just as there are strong women and weak women. However a weak men will still be ok. He most likely won't be a single father. It is very rare. A weak man mostly likely will just live in his mother's basement, work minimal wage jobs and never find a wife. But that isn't even that bad if you think about it.

No one in our sociality gets nearly as abused as a weak woman. And the feminists wants to take away a social system that had protected them for hundreds of years?

Of course the feminist couldn't careless about these weak women. They aren't their target audience anyways. That's why they want sex, abortion and social welfare programs for single mothers. It all come together.

Wait a minute! These things doesn't sound all that bad right? That depends on your point of view.

Does an unborn child has the right to live?
Does a child has the right to a father?

Feminist never considered the children. They want to kill the children. Alternatively, they want the government to pay for their mess. How much money does it take to replace the father in a child's life?

Caste system is not by necessity intertwined with the religion so much as the culture, in a similar way to Japan's animism and eclecticism being in their culture, not in the religion of Shinto.

If men and women need each other, then don't create a dynamic where women become codependent and weak

To say that the system you encourage protected women only shows how blind you are to how protection is not the same as encouraging growth in any real sense. When you create dependence, you are able to exploit that and keep women in a cycle where they won't try to get out because they're too frightened to get away from what keeps them feeling safe, rather than fulfilled. Or, to be more precise, you ask a woman to sacrifice liberty for security.

The new system should protect all people regardless of sex. Sure, there are problems, I'm not saying it's perfect, but to say we should go back to women being treated like second class citizens, as if they can do nothing without a man supporting them, is no better than what you accuse feminism of doing, just under a different name.

Autonomy is not evil in itself: women wanting to be treated as individuals and not being roped into unreasonable obligations based on antiquated ideas is not libertine, it's basic rights and acknowledging that women are more than their uteri.

 

[CCHIPSS]

Caste system is not by necessity intertwined with the religion so much as the culture, in a similar way to Japan's animism and eclecticism being in their culture, not in the religion of Shinto.

If men and women need each other, then don't create a dynamic where women become codependent and weak

To say that the system you encourage protected women only shows how blind you are to how protection is not the same as encouraging growth in any real sense. When you create dependence, you are able to exploit that and keep women in a cycle where they won't try to get out because they're too frightened to get away from what keeps them feeling safe, rather than fulfilled. Or, to be more precise, you ask a woman to sacrifice liberty for security.

The new system should protect all people regardless of sex. Sure, there are problems, I'm not saying it's perfect, but to say we should go back to women being treated like second class citizens, as if they can do nothing without a man supporting them, is no better than what you accuse feminism of doing, just under a different name.

Autonomy is not evil in itself: women wanting to be treated as individuals and not being roped into unreasonable obligations based on antiquated ideas is not libertine, it's basic rights and acknowledging that women are more than their uteri.

You said: If men and women need each other, then don't create a dynamic where women become codependent and weak

Why do you keep generalizing? How do you totally eliminate weak women? You cannot. Look, there will always be weak women on this world. Those women that are too trusting. Those women that more easily fall into lies. Those woman who are to shy, lack confidence and cannot stand up for themselves. Those woman that cannot leave terrible situations on their own. Those woman who are bad at school and bad at career. etc

Every single women that is getting abused by their BF or husband, and do not tell anyone else about it, is a weak woman.

There is no way to help these weak women except to train up a generation of Godly, upstanding men to take care of them.

For example a woman got really drunk in a house party. A gang of 3 "boys" wants to gang rape her. There are at least 20 other guys there, but they all watched these 3 "boys" took her upstairs and did nothing. Not even 1 man defended her. Some of these men knew that woman since high school. She thought she can rely on their protection, but she cannot.

I didn't make these kind of stories up. Go ahead and read some of these heartbreaking stories. And then imagine that you are the dad of these ladies. How would you feel?
http://www.bravemissworld.com/category/stranger-rape

Shame on our sociality!

I am not a dad yet. But maybe 20 years later I will be one. When my daughter say she is going to her high school, I wonder if that day her BF and his friends would drug her and gang rape her, then take nude pictures of her to keep her quiet(happened, read the stories). And she is so ashamed that she never even told me that story. When she goes to a house party, I would be worried if that night she will get gang raped (happened, read the stories). And if she doesn't tell me, will she take her own life?

Yes these women are weak women. You will say "Wait a minute! She wasn't all that weak. She was just drugged and overpowered by 3 boys!" Exactly. The average woman is weak and boys are insane. Boys can rape her very easily.

That's why the average woman needs protection from man. As a teenager the girl needs to listen to her dad, not just bush him off as controlling or limiting her freedom. This is the commend of God, for her own protection. She knows nothing, compared to her dad. Yet feminists say she should go out and do whatever she wants and however she wants, and the dad should shut up.

Feminists are insane to believe that women are literally just like men. That women can do exactly what men do and still stay safe. Evil men exists. And the feminist solution is abortion and social benefits for single mothers?

See, I am not even talking about sex before marriage. I am talking about how to prevent her from getting raped. Even non-believers won't want their daughters to get gang raped.

You said: To say that the system you encourage protected women only shows how blind you are to how protection is not the same as encouraging growth in any real sense. When you create dependence, you are able to exploit that and keep women in a cycle where they won't try to get out because they're too frightened to get away from what keeps them feeling safe, rather than fulfilled. Or, to be more precise, you ask a woman to sacrifice liberty for security.

The only way to teach the boys to do the right thing is by teaching them that women needs their protection. Read: Women are to be protected, not used & abuse & dump. Else boys will stay boys and never be a man. They will go around raping drunk women in parties. They will get their GF pregnant and then run away. And the sociality tells the fathers that they don't know how to be a father, so the fathers should just let their daughters run around wild.

It is not so much "dependence" as it is "chivalry". Sexual equality does not go against chivalry. But Feminism does, because chivalry "takes away" their freedom and "indicates" that females depends on men.

You said: The new system should protect all people regardless of sex. Sure, there are problems, I'm not saying it's perfect, but to say we should go back to women being treated like second class citizens, as if they can do nothing without a man supporting them, is no better than what you accuse feminism of doing, just under a different name.

Once again I am all for sexual equality. What second class citizen? Where did I said I supported this kind of system?

I am against feminists that goes against chivalry. This means what good men do for them are bad, in feminists eyes. The feminists encourage a culture where boys can stay boys forever, and abuse the ladies however way they want. And the police and court system can't do anything, even if these boys were found guilty, because they are underage.

You said: Autonomy is not evil in itself: women wanting to be treated as individuals and not being roped into unreasonable obligations based on antiquated ideas is not libertine, it's basic rights and acknowledging that women are more than their uteri.

Let me just say this. Women enjoys the most freedom when they are under the protection of a man that truly loves them.

 

[Goodbook]

That reminds me of my friend. No longer here on earth. She became a christian only five days before she passed away but she was at this party and the guys and so called bf just left her there. She wanted to go home but nobody would take her or give her a ride, she had no car. She called the police and they told her to take a taxi but the taxi never showed. The police dimissed her, called her a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] for troubling them until they realised she was missing.

If her bf was responisble he never would have left her there to fend for herself where she didnt know anybody and was afraid. The last people she ever saw, a couple of lesbians, denied any responisbilty for her welfare. The police tried to blame everyone else for not doing their job. She is with the Lord now.

 

[SnowyMacie]

You said: If men and women need each other, then don't create a dynamic where women become codependent and weak

Why do you keep generalizing? How do you totally eliminate weak women? You cannot. Look, there will always be weak women on this world. Those women that are too trusting. Those women that more easily fall into lies. Those woman who are to shy, lack confidence and cannot stand up for themselves. Those woman that cannot leave terrible situations on their own. Those woman who are bad at school and bad at career. etc

Every single women that is getting abused by their BF or husband, and do not tell anyone else about it, is a weak woman.

There is no way to help these weak women except to train up a generation of Godly, upstanding men to take care of them.

For example a woman got really drunk in a house party. A gang of 3 "boys" wants to gang rape her. There are at least 20 other guys there, but they all watched these 3 "boys" took her upstairs and did nothing. Not even 1 man defended her. Some of these men knew that woman since high school. She thought she can rely on their protection, but she cannot.

I didn't make these kind of stories up. Go ahead and read some of these heartbreaking stories. And then imagine that you are the dad of these ladies. How would you feel?
http://www.bravemissworld.com/category/stranger-rape

Shame on our sociality!

I am not a dad yet. But maybe 20 years later I will be one. When my daughter say she is going to her high school, I wonder if that day her BF and his friends would drug her and gang rape her, then take nude pictures of her to keep her quiet(happened, read the stories). And she is so ashamed that she never even told me that story. When she goes to a house party, I would be worried if that night she will get gang raped (happened, read the stories).

Yes these women are weak women. You will say "Wait a minute! She wasn't all that weak. She was just drugged and overpowered by 3 boys!" Exactly. The average woman is weak and boys are insane. Boys can rape her very easily.

That's why the average woman needs protection from man. As a teenager the girl needs to listen to her dad, not just bush him off as controlling or limiting her freedom. This is the commend of God, for her own protection. She knows nothing, compared to her dad. Yet feminists say she should go out and do whatever she wants and however she wants, and the dad should shut up.

Feminists are insane to believe that women are literally just like men. That women can do exactly what men do and still stay safe. Evil men exists. And the feminist solution is abortion and social benefits for single mothers?

See, I am not even talking about sex before marriage. I am talking about how to prevent her from getting raped. Even non-believers won't want their daughters to get gang raped.

You said: To say that the system you encourage protected women only shows how blind you are to how protection is not the same as encouraging growth in any real sense. When you create dependence, you are able to exploit that and keep women in a cycle where they won't try to get out because they're too frightened to get away from what keeps them feeling safe, rather than fulfilled. Or, to be more precise, you ask a woman to sacrifice liberty for security.

The only way to teach the boys to do the right thing is by teaching them that women needs their protection. Read: Women are to be protected, not used & abuse & dump. Else boys will stay boys and never be a man. They will go around raping drunk women in parties. They will get their GF pregnant and then run away. And the sociality tells the fathers that they don't know how to be a father, so the fathers should just let their daughters run around wild.

It is not so much "dependence" as it is "chivalry". Sexual equality does not go against chivalry. But Feminism does, because chivalry "takes away" their freedom and "indicates" that females depends on men.

You said: The new system should protect all people regardless of sex. Sure, there are problems, I'm not saying it's perfect, but to say we should go back to women being treated like second class citizens, as if they can do nothing without a man supporting them, is no better than what you accuse feminism of doing, just under a different name.

Once again I am all for sexual equality. What second class citizen? Where did I said I supported this kind of system?

I am against feminists that goes against chivalry. This means what good men do for them are bad, in feminists eyes. The feminists encourage a culture where boys can stay boys forever, and abuse the ladies however way they want. And the police and court system can't do anything, even if these boys were found guilty, because they are underage.

You said: Autonomy is not evil in itself: women wanting to be treated as individuals and not being roped into unreasonable obligations based on antiquated ideas is not libertine, it's basic rights and acknowledging that women are more than their uteri.

Let me just say this. Women enjoys the most freedom when they are under the protection of a man that truly loves them.

This is one of the most sexist things I have ever read in my life against both men and women. Honestly, I'm also disturbed this post. Boys are not rapists, rapists are rapists. Do you know why weak women like that exist? A lot of it has to do with this exact mentality that you preach in this post: Women need men. The truth is that women are just as capable of being strong as men. Furthermore, teaching your daughter that she needs protection from men is going to make her on of those weak women that are going be in bigger danger of falling for the tricks of those that want to use and abuse her because it's really giving her lesson that she needs to have a man to be fully herself.

 

[CCHIPSS]

This is one of the most sexist things I have ever read in my life against both men and women. Honestly, I'm also disturbed this post. Boys are not rapists, rapists are rapists. Do you know why weak women like that exist? A lot of it has to do with this exact mentality that you preach in this post: Women need men. The truth is that women are just as capable of being strong as men. Furthermore, teaching your daughter that she needs protection from men is going to make her on of those weak women that are going be in bigger danger of falling for the tricks of those that want to use and abuse her because it's really giving her lesson that she needs to have a man to be fully herself.

Satan is at work once again. That's why all your people hear is sexism.

You said: "Boys are not rapists, rapists are rapists."

You are missing my whole point. My point is rapists exist. Ok? Are you going to throw your own daughter to these rapists? Of course not!

Am I saying every single boys out there are rapists? Of course not! I am saying that teenager girls needs to be careful. This is not about having fun or freedom. Teenage girls must listen to their father in these things. Else it is so easy to take advantage of teenager girls.

Teenage boys can afford to be a bit rebellious. I know it is unfair but look at just this one example. Boys can get very drunk at a house party, and still the chance of them getting raped is almost zero.

Teenage girls cannot afford to be rebellious. I am sorry. The world is not fair. If they get that drunk at a house party, and if a rapists is present, the teenager girls might get raped. Even if they just drink water from a stranger, that water might have date drugs. This is real life. This is real world.

Once again I am not saying every boy is a rapists. But rapists exist! And the girls cannot count on their teenage (unreliable) friends for protection at all. The friends might either disappear from the party (happened, read the stories) or the friends will just watch the rapist(s) bring her upstairs and do nothing (happened, read the stories). Do you get it now?

Is this sexist? Why can a teenage boy get drunk all he wants, while a teenage girl can't? Hey look I am once again sorry ok? Boys and girls are different. This is how the world is.

Fury: SHIELD takes the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be

You said: Do you know why weak women like that exist? A lot of it has to do with this exact mentality that you preach in this post: Women need men.

The message to teenage boys is indeed "Women needs protections from men. And men are expected to provide that protection. In fact protect and defend not just your GF, but all females you see. " This teaches them chivalry. And I stand that every boy needs to learn to these kind of mindset to become a man. Else they will stay boys forever.

What are they going to tell their future wife? Oh I messed up a few times when I was a teenager. I drug raped a few women. I got a few GFs pregnant. How charming! Or hide that past from their wife, the person they loved the most.

But the message to teenage girls is different. The message to teenage girl is "Listen and obey your father. When he tells you to come home by 9, obey him. When he tells you to be very careful in house parties and watch out for dating drugs, listen to him."

In fact that message to teenage girl is not "women needs men" at all. It is in a way the exact opposite. The message is actually "Do not overly trust teenage boys around you. Some might be rapists or other terrible influence. Wait until you are old enough to discern the safety of the situation. And wait till you know more about how to discern who you can trust. Until then, obey your father."

So the message to boys and girls are different. To message to boys is for the protection of the girl. Be a hero and protect all ladies around you. The message to the girl is for her own protection. Listen to your dad. You can call me sexist all you want. My goal is to protect the women out there.

 

[muichimotsu]

You said: If men and women need each other, then don't create a dynamic where women become codependent and weak

Why do you keep generalizing? How do you totally eliminate weak women? You cannot. Look, there will always be weak women on this world. Those women that are too trusting. Those women that more easily fall into lies. Those woman who are to shy, lack confidence and cannot stand up for themselves. Those woman that cannot leave terrible situations on their own. Those woman who are bad at school and bad at career. etc

Every single women that is getting abused by their BF or husband, and do not tell anyone else about it, is a weak woman.

There is no way to help these weak women except to train up a generation of Godly, upstanding men to take care of them.

For example a woman got really drunk in a house party. A gang of 3 "boys" wants to gang rape her. There are at least 20 other guys there, but they all watched these 3 "boys" took her upstairs and did nothing. Not even 1 man defended her. Some of these men knew that woman since high school. She thought she can rely on their protection, but she cannot.

I didn't make these kind of stories up. Go ahead and read some of these heartbreaking stories. And then imagine that you are the dad of these ladies. How would you feel?
http://www.bravemissworld.com/category/stranger-rape

Shame on our sociality!

I am not a dad yet. But maybe 20 years later I will be one. When my daughter say she is going to her high school, I wonder if that day her BF and his friends would drug her and gang rape her, then take nude pictures of her to keep her quiet(happened, read the stories). And she is so ashamed that she never even told me that story. When she goes to a house party, I would be worried if that night she will get gang raped (happened, read the stories). And if she doesn't tell me, will she take her own life?

Yes these women are weak women. You will say "Wait a minute! She wasn't all that weak. She was just drugged and overpowered by 3 boys!" Exactly. The average woman is weak and boys are insane. Boys can rape her very easily.

That's why the average woman needs protection from man. As a teenager the girl needs to listen to her dad, not just bush him off as controlling or limiting her freedom. This is the commend of God, for her own protection. She knows nothing, compared to her dad. Yet feminists say she should go out and do whatever she wants and however she wants, and the dad should shut up.

Feminists are insane to believe that women are literally just like men. That women can do exactly what men do and still stay safe. Evil men exists. And the feminist solution is abortion and social benefits for single mothers?

See, I am not even talking about sex before marriage. I am talking about how to prevent her from getting raped. Even non-believers won't want their daughters to get gang raped.

You said: To say that the system you encourage protected women only shows how blind you are to how protection is not the same as encouraging growth in any real sense. When you create dependence, you are able to exploit that and keep women in a cycle where they won't try to get out because they're too frightened to get away from what keeps them feeling safe, rather than fulfilled. Or, to be more precise, you ask a woman to sacrifice liberty for security.

The only way to teach the boys to do the right thing is by teaching them that women needs their protection. Read: Women are to be protected, not used & abuse & dump. Else boys will stay boys and never be a man. They will go around raping drunk women in parties. They will get their GF pregnant and then run away. And the sociality tells the fathers that they don't know how to be a father, so the fathers should just let their daughters run around wild.

It is not so much "dependence" as it is "chivalry". Sexual equality does not go against chivalry. But Feminism does, because chivalry "takes away" their freedom and "indicates" that females depends on men.

You said: The new system should protect all people regardless of sex. Sure, there are problems, I'm not saying it's perfect, but to say we should go back to women being treated like second class citizens, as if they can do nothing without a man supporting them, is no better than what you accuse feminism of doing, just under a different name.

Once again I am all for sexual equality. What second class citizen? Where did I said I supported this kind of system?

I am against feminists that goes against chivalry. This means what good men do for them are bad, in feminists eyes. The feminists encourage a culture where boys can stay boys forever, and abuse the ladies however way they want. And the police and court system can't do anything, even if these boys were found guilty, because they are underage.

You said: Autonomy is not evil in itself: women wanting to be treated as individuals and not being roped into unreasonable obligations based on antiquated ideas is not libertine, it's basic rights and acknowledging that women are more than their uteri.

Let me just say this. Women enjoys the most freedom when they are under the protection of a man that truly loves them.

By your logic, we cannot eliminate weak people: making the nuance between sex isn't always reasonable or fair.

Women enjoy the most freedom when they aren't regarded as a weaker sex that needs protecting: rather they should be in a society that doesn't regard them as sexual objects or lesser in any real sense. We shouldn't have to tell people not to sexually assault women, because if we're going by statistics, the issue is men and their attitude towards them. When culture encourages women to be weak, you're not going to get much else other than that except by the anomalies.

Women should be protected the same as men: that's equality. Women shouldn't be regarded as necessarily needing more protection because that shouldn't be the case unless culture has some attitude that women are just easier to exploit, which is illogical.

The average woman needs protection from a society that encourages such things in men, not from men in themselves who don't have that disposition without cultural encouragement.

Again, this isn't a purely sexual dichotomy with regards to your teenager and parents example: that applies equally across the board: my mom might've seemed controlling to me, but she was nonetheless looking out for me, same as a father to his daughter, etc.

Feminists do not say that, libertines say that: people have restraints on their behavior for the good of themselves and others. But when you have the repressive attitude that women are to be protected rather than respected as human beings, you're the problem, because you're just encouraging a system where women are always weak and will become codependent on men, even when they might not realize they're being abused in one way or another

Chivalry had very little to do with treating women rather than general knightly behavior and such, including combat and the like. Also, it was in a time when women were little more than property to be shifted around by family, so you're missing the historical context where women were still treated like crap and put into codependent relationships, because they couldn't be expected to survive on their own.

You support the notion of women being regarded as weaker and never being encouraged to defend themselves or that society should maybe encourage a notion of sexual equality rather than a dynamic where men are superior, which isn't fair or logical.

You're creating a false dichotomy between your presumption of Christian patriarchy and feminist extremism, as if those are the only two options, when that's not what I'm encouraging at all.

You can have respect for women without patronizing them as if they always need protection. When you have that sort of attitude, it's no wonder you create the polar opposite as a reaction to it, even though that's not the solution we should seek. Especially when you assume only "Godly" men can respect women, rather than respect for women being a general human virtue, regardless of religion or lack thereof.

 

[muichimotsu]

That reminds me of my friend. No longer here on earth. She became a christian only five days before she passed away but she was at this party and the guys and so called bf just left her there. She wanted to go home but nobody would take her or give her a ride, she had no car. She called the police and they told her to take a taxi but the taxi never showed. The police dimissed her, called her a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] for troubling them until they realised she was missing.

If her bf was responisble he never would have left her there to fend for herself where she didnt know anybody and was afraid. The last people she ever saw, a couple of lesbians, denied any responisbilty for her welfare. The police tried to blame everyone else for not doing their job. She is with the Lord now.

Your concern is victim blaming, which is a problem that arguably reinforces the negative idea that women are helpless and can't fend for themselves without a man. Why can't a woman be a support for them in such a situation? Are women just all submissive and ignorant? Not at all

 

[muichimotsu]

Satan is at work once again. That's why all your people hear is sexism.

You said: "Boys are not rapists, rapists are rapists."

You are missing my whole point. My point is rapists exist. Ok? Are you going to throw your own daughter to these rapists? Of course not!

Am I saying every single boys out there are rapists? Of course not! I am saying that teenager girls needs to be careful. This is not about having fun or freedom. Teenage girls must listen to their father in these things. Else it is so easy to take advantage of teenager girls.

Teenage boys can afford to be a bit rebellious. I know it is unfair but look at just this one example. Boys can get very drunk at a house party, and still the chance of them getting raped is almost zero.

Teenage girls cannot afford to be rebellious. I am sorry. The world is not fair. If they get that drunk at a house party, and if a rapists is present, the teenager girls might get raped. Even if they just drink water from a stranger, that water might have date drugs. This is real life. This is real world.

Once again I am not saying every boy is a rapists. But rapists exist! And the girls cannot count on their teenage (unreliable) friends for protection at all. The friends might either disappear from the party (happened, read the stories) or the friends will just watch the rapist(s) bring her upstairs and do nothing (happened, read the stories). Do you get it now?

Is this sexist? Why can a teenage boy get drunk all he wants, while a teenage girl can't? Hey look I am once again sorry ok? Boys and girls are different. This is how the world is.

Fury: SHIELD takes the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be

You said: Do you know why weak women like that exist? A lot of it has to do with this exact mentality that you preach in this post: Women need men.

The message to teenage boys is indeed "Women needs protections from men. And men are expected to provide that protection. In fact protect and defend not just your GF, but all females you see. " This teaches them chivalry. And I stand that every boy needs to learn to these kind of mindset to become a man. Else they will stay boys forever.

What are they going to tell their future wife? Oh I messed up a few times when I was a teenager. I drug raped a few women. I got a few GFs pregnant. How charming! Or hide that past from their wife, the person they loved the most.

But the message to teenage girls is different. The message to teenage girl is "Listen and obey your father. When he tells you to come home by 9, obey him. When he tells you to be very careful in house parties and watch out for dating drugs, listen to him."

In fact that message to teenage girl is not "women needs men" at all. It is in a way the exact opposite. The message is actually "Do not overly trust teenage boys around you. Some might be rapists or other terrible influence. Wait until you are old enough to discern the safety of the situation. And wait till you know more about how to discern who you can trust. Until then, obey your father."

So the message to boys and girls are different. To message to boys is for the protection of the girl. Be a hero and protect all ladies around you. The message to the girl is for her own protection. Listen to your dad. You can call me sexist all you want. My goal is to protect the women out there.

Women are not purely at fault here: men are the one that commit rape against women in the general context we're talking about. You cannot say you respect women when your attitude towards men being disrespectful to women is "Oh well, boys will be boys," Everyone has the possibility of being raped, the point that should be emphasized is that we should not disrespect people's autonomy, because that is what rape does. If men are just told to protect women, the problem remains, because protecting them is somewhat vague in regards to what constitutes that, not to mention that there can be an excess of individualism that shrugs off that obligation anyway

Maybe an attitude of moderating your drinking, having someone to keep you balanced or such, is a better idea than enforcing a double standard where men can just do whatever they want and seemingly have no consequences, even though that's the thing you're implicitly trying to entail here. You can't have it both ways: you can't encourage men to just go around doing whatever or accepting it as unchangeable and then say that men should change and respect women according to your patriarchal attitude where women are just the weaker sex.

Your message can be modified and fit in an egalitarian society without being sexist in the slightest: don't trust anyone entirely, especially in regards to a situation where you can get drugged. Trust, but verify, as it were. When people understand that you don't sit around and let someone get raped or even let the suspicion just go away, it's better for everyone, women and men. You ask what's going on, you keep an eye on the vulnerable in general, not just women, but anyone who's in a situation that is a risk to their safety

And your attitude is especially troubling because it just encourages a level of suspicion that you accuses radical feminists of teaching anyway: the only difference is that you create dependency on males in a contradictory fashion while also saying that all men could rape you, which include the particular authorities you trust, so there's cognitive dissonance going on